Comparison of once- and twice-daily dosing of fluticasone propionate 200 micrograms per day administered by diskus device in patients with asthma treated with or without inhaled corticosteroids

Salbutamol Easyhaler provides non-inferior relief of methacholine induced bronchoconstriction in comparison to Ventoline Evohaler with spacer: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Salbutamol is a cornerstone for relieving acute asthma symptoms, typically administered through a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI). Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) offer an alternative, but concerns exist whether DPIs provide an effective relief during an obstructive event.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to show non-inferiority of Salbutamol Easyhaler DPI compared to pMDI with spacer in treating methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction. Applicability of Budesonide-formoterol Easyhaler DPI as a reliever was also assessed.

METHODS

This was a randomized, parallel-group trial in subjects sent to methacholine challenge (MC) test for asthma diagnostics. Participants with at least 20% decrease in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) were randomized to receive Salbutamol Easyhaler (2x200 μg), Ventoline Evohaler with spacer (4x100 μg) or Budesonide-formoterol Easyhaler (2x160/4.5 μg) as a reliever. The treatment was repeated if FEV1 did not recover to at least -10% of baseline.

RESULTS

180 participants (69% females, mean age 46 yrs [range 18-80], FEV1%pred 89.5 [62-142] %) completed the trial. Salbutamol Easyhaler was non-inferior to pMDI with spacer in acute relief of bronchoconstriction showing a -0.083 (95% LCL -0.146) L FEV1 difference after the first dose and -0.032 (-0.071) L after the last dose. The differences in FEV1 between Budesonide-formoterol Easyhaler and Salbutamol pMDI with spacer were -0.163 (-0.225) L after the first and -0.092 (-0.131) L after the last dose.

CONCLUSION

The study confirms non-inferiority of Salbutamol Easyhaler to Ventoline Evohaler with spacer in relieving acute bronchoconstriction, making Easyhaler a sustainable and safe reliever for MC test and supports its use during asthma attacks.

Once-Daily Fluticasone Propionate is as Effective as Twice-Daily Treatment in Stable, Mild-to-Moderate Childhood Asthma

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that once-daily treatment with fluticasone propionate is as effective as twice-daily treatment in children with well controlled asthma.

DESIGN

Multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study.

SETTING

General practice, 86 UK centres.

PATIENTS

328 children with a diagnosis of asthma and a mean age of 10 years (range 4-16 years), mean duration of asthma of 5.5 years, and a mean percentage predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second prior to randomisation of 93% were randomised.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients entered a 4-week, open run-in period, receiving fluticasone propionate 50mug twice daily via a Diskustrade mark inhalation device. Patients whose asthma was well controlled according to predefined criteria were randomised to receive either fluticasone propionate 100mug at night and placebo in the morning (once daily [od] group; n = 151) or fluticasone propionate 50mug twice daily (bd) [bd group; n = 177] for 8 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean morning peak expiratory flow over the 8 weeks of treatment, recorded daily, adjusted for baseline, age, height and sex.

RESULTS

The 90% CI for the treatment difference in morning peak flow (bd-od) in the intention-to-treat population was -1.9 to 5.3 L/min, demonstrating clinical equivalence between bd and od administration. Fifteen patients withdrew from the study due to asthma-related problems, ten patients from the od group and five from the bd groups (p = 0.10). Both groups remained well controlled in terms of lung function, symptoms and use of relief medication throughout the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily treatment with fluticasone propionate 100mug at night is as effective as 50mug twice daily in children with well controlled mild-to-moderate asthma.

A 24-week comparison of low-dose ciclesonide and fluticasone propionate in mild to moderate asthma

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of ciclesonide (80 microg/day) with fluticasone propionate (200 microg/day) in mild to moderate persistent asthma.

METHODS

Patients aged 12-75 years and previously treated with low doses of inhaled corticosteroid (fluticasone propionate 250 microg/day or equivalent) entered a 2-4 week run-in period during which only rescue medication was permitted. For inclusion into the double-blind, 24-week treatment period, patients had to show a forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV(1)) of 61-90% predicted and a decrease in FEV(1) during run-in of >or=10%. Patients (n = 480) were randomized to ciclesonide 80 microg (ex-actuator) once daily in the evening or fluticasone propionate 100 microg (ex-valve) twice daily. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in FEV(1). Secondary efficacy variables included asthma control and asthma-specific quality of life.

RESULTS

Both treatments significantly increased FEV(1) and other lung function variables from baseline (p < 0.0001, both groups, all variables). The least squares mean increases in FEV(1) were 0.46L (ciclesonide) and 0.52L (fluticasone propionate); non-inferiority of ciclesonide to fluticasone propionate was demonstrated (p = 0.0002, per-protocol analysis). Five patients in each group experienced asthma exacerbations. Improvements in the percent of days with asthma control (days with no asthma symptoms and no use of rescue medication) and asthma-specific quality of life were comparable between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

The study confirmed similar efficacy of ciclesonide 80 microg once daily and fluticasone propionate 100 microg twice daily in mild to moderate persistent asthma. The low dose of ciclesonide was efficacious during long-term treatment. EudraCT number: 2004-001072-39.

Fluticasone versus placebo for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) is a relatively new inhaled corticosteroid for the treatment of asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess efficacy and safety outcomes in studies that compared FP to placebo for treatment of chronic asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (January 2008), reference lists of articles, contacted trialists and searched abstracts of major respiratory society meetings (1997-2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials in children and adults comparing FP to placebo in the treatment of chronic asthma. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and risk of bias.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data. Quantitative analyses were undertaken using Review Manager software.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, recruiting 16,160 participants. In non-oral steroid treated asthmatics with mild and moderate disease FP resulted in improvements from baseline compared with placebo across all dose ranges (100 to 1000 mcg/d) in FEV1 (between 0.1 to 0.43 litres); morning PEF (between 23 and 46 L/min); symptom scores (based on a standardised scale, between 0.44 and 0.7); reduction in rescue beta-2 agonist use (between 1 and 1.4 puffs/day). High dose FP increased the number of patients who could withdraw from prednisolone: FP 1000-1500 mcg/day Peto Odds Ratio 14.07 (95% CI 7.17 to 27.57). FP at all doses led to a greater likelihood of sore throat, hoarseness and oral Candidiasis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Doses of FP in the range 100-1000 mcg/day are effective. In most patients with mild-moderate asthma improvements with low dose FP are only a little less than those associated with high doses when compared with placebo. High dose FP appears to have worthwhile oral-corticosteroid reducing properties. FP use is accompanied by an increased likelihood of oropharyngeal side effects.

Fluticasone at different doses for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) is a high-potency inhaled corticosteroid used in the treatment of asthma.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the efficacy and safety outcomes of inhaled fluticasone at different nominal daily doses in the treatment of chronic asthma.2. To test for the presence of a dose-response effect.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register (January 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials in children and adults comparing fluticasone at different nominal daily doses in the treatment of chronic asthma. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted data. These were checked and verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative analyses where undertaken using Review Manager.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-one published and unpublished trials (representing 55 group comparisons, 10,797 participants) met the inclusion criteria. In asthmatics with mild to moderate disease who were not on oral steroids, FP did not exhibit a dose-response effect in the lower dose comparisons in FEV1 (50mcg, 100mcg, 200mcg and 4-500mcg daily). There were no statisitically significant differences between 4-500mcg and 800-1000mcg, and between 50-100 and 800-1000mcg of FP. When 200mcg was compared with 800-1000mcg daily FEV1 favoured the four/five fold increase. For PEF, a dose response was present with FP when low and moderate, and low and high doses of FP were compared. There was no evidence of a dose-response effect on symptoms or rescue beta-2 agonist use. The likelihood of hoarseness and oral candidiasis was significantly greater for the higher doses (800 to 1000 microg/day). People with oral steroid-dependent asthma treated with FP (2000 microg/day) were significantly more likely to reduce oral prednisolone than those on 1000 to 1500 microg/day (Peto odds Ratio 2.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 6.3). The highest dose also allowed a significant reduction in daily oral prednisolone dose compared to 1000 to 1500 microg/day (WMD 2.0 mg/day, 95% CI 0.1 to 4.0 mg/day).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have not found evidence of a pronounced dose response in FEV1 with increasing doses of fluticasone. The number of studies contributing to our primary outcomes was low. At dose ratios of 1:2, there are statistically significant differences in favour of the higher dose in morning peak flow across the low dose range. The clinical impact of these differences is open to interpretation. Patients with moderate disease achieve similar levels of asthma control on medium doses of fluticasone (400 to 500 microg/day) as they do on high doses (800 to 1000 microg/day). More work in severe asthma would help to confirm that doses of FP above 500 microg/day confer greater benefit in this subgroup than doses of around 200 microg/day. In oral corticosteroid-dependent asthmatics, reductions in prednisolone requirement may be gained with FP 2000 microg/day.

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate via Diskus once daily versus fluticasone propionate twice daily in patients with mild asthma not previously receiving maintenance corticosteroids

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The efficacy and safety of twice-daily inhaled salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC) therapy have been well established in the treatment of adults and adolescents with asthma. Once-daily administration of SFC could also be appropriate in patients with mild persistent asthma. This study aimed to investigate whether once-daily SFC 50 microg/100 microg was at least as effective as fluticasone propionate (FP) 100 microg twice daily, and more effective than twice-daily placebo, over 52 weeks as initial maintenance therapy in patients with mild persistent asthma.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, multicentre, parallel-group study carried out in primary and secondary care. Patients aged between 12 and 79 years with a documented clinical history of asthma for > or =6 months who were currently receiving inhaled short-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists only were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive either once-daily inhaled SFC 50 microg/100 microg, twice-daily inhaled FP 100 microg (i.e. twice the dose of FP compared with SFC) or placebo for 52 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoints were mean morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), as recorded by patients prior to the use of bronchodilator or study medication, and the rate of investigator-recorded asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

Patients receiving twice-daily FP and once-daily SFC showed greater improvements in mean morning PEF compared with those receiving placebo (FP, difference in means 20.1 L/min; 95% CI 14.7, 25.5; p < 0.001; SFC, difference in means 14.8 L/min; 95% CI 9.4, 20.2; p < 0.001). The difference in adjusted mean PEF between once-daily SFC and twice-daily FP was -5.3 L/min (95% CI -9.1, -1.6). PEF results showed that once-daily SFC was non-inferior to twice-daily FP. Over 52 weeks, there was a 35% reduction in exacerbation rates with once-daily SFC, which in this respect demonstrated superiority over placebo (p < 0.001). Non-inferiority between once-daily SFC and twice-daily FP with respect to exacerbation rates was not shown. Once-daily SFC significantly improved clinic forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of forced vital capacity (difference in means 0.129 L/s; p < 0.001) and clinic PEF (difference in means 10.8 L/min; p < 0.001) compared with twice-daily FP. Both treatments were well tolerated and the safety profile of each was similar to that seen with placebo.

CONCLUSION

In patients with mild persistent asthma not previously receiving maintenance therapy, once-daily SFC 50 microg/100 microg is an effective treatment compared with placebo, and was non-inferior to twice-daily FP 100 microg with respect to mean morning PEF. However, in this study, once-daily SFC was not as efficacious as twice-daily FP in reducing asthma exacerbation rates. This study confirms the benefits of regular maintenance treatment in patients with mild persistent asthma.

Costs and resource use of mild persistent asthma patients initiated on controller therapy

BACKGROUND

The treatment of mild persistent asthma is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

A retrospective database approach was used to evaluate different alternatives to treating mild persistent asthma. We hypothesized that treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) would result in lowest costs than treatment with leukotriene modifiers (LM) and combination therapy with ICS long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonists (LABA) because it would be associated with fewer acute care visits and hospitalizations than LM and it would have lower drug acquisition costs than both ICS+LABA and LM.

METHODS

Costs and resource utilization were compared in 1,283 mild persistent asthma patients initiating regular use of either ICS, ICS+LABA, or LM. Mild persistent asthma patients were identified from a privately insured claims database (1999-2005) using an established algorithm. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and generalized linear models were used to compare costs.

RESULTS

Of the total patients who met study criteria, 319 patients (24.9%) initiated regular ICS use, 414 (32.3%) ICS+LABA use, and 550 (42.9%) LM use. Over the 1 year after controller therapy initiation, asthma-related direct costs were significantly lower with ICS compared with ICS+LABA or LM ($819 for ICS, $1,094 for ICS+LABA, and $869 for LM, p < 0.001 for all comparisons). There were no significant differences in resource use.

CONCLUSION

In this analysis, physicians, despite guideline recommendations, chose to treat patients with mild persistent asthma more often with LM and ICS+LABA than with ICS. However, therapy with ICS was less costly than treatment with either LM or ICS+LABA, primarily due to differences in drug costs, and provided similar outcomes.

Combined salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus fluticasone propionate alone in mild asthma : a placebo-controlled comparison

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Combined therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists (LABAs) is the recommended approach for the treatment of patients with asthma that is uncontrolled on ICSs alone. Additional studies are needed to assess the safety and efficacy of combination treatment with ICSs and LABAs in patients with mild asthma. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC) with once-daily fluticasone propionate (FP) over a 12-week treatment period in patients with mild persistent asthma.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre study carried out in primary care or at a hospital outpatient department and included patients 12-79 years of age with mild persistent asthma (n = 458). After a 2-week run-in period, patients were randomized to receive SFC 50 microg/100 microg (n = 149), FP 100 microg (n = 154) or placebo (n = 155) once daily in the morning for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was patient-recorded pre-dose mean morning peak expiratory flow (PEF). Other assessments included asthma symptom scores, use of rescue medication and investigator-recorded exacerbations. Lung function was measured and assessed during clinic visits.

RESULTS

For the primary efficacy endpoint of mean change in morning PEF, SFC achieved significantly greater increases from baseline than both placebo (difference in adjusted means 23 L/min; 95% CI 15.0, 30.3; p < 0.001) and FP (difference in adjusted means 14 L/min; 95% CI 6.3, 21.7; p < 0.001). Compared with those who received FP, patients in the SFC group demonstrated significantly greater improvements in mean evening PEF (95% CI 11.7, 28.1; p < 0.001), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (95% CI 0.093, 0.257; p < 0.001), forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of forced vital capacity (95% CI 0.242, 0.617; p < 0.001), the percentage of symptom-free days (95% CI 0.34, 0.87; p = 0.011), and the percentage of rescue medication-free days (95% CI 0.34, 0.90; p = 0.018). During weeks 5-12, 52% of patients in the SFC group achieved 'well controlled' asthma, compared with 42% and 26% of patients in the FP and placebo groups, respectively. Only one patient (receiving placebo) had a severe asthma exacerbation during the study; the frequency of adverse events was similar across the three treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily SFC 50 microg/100 microg provided significantly greater improvements in lung function and in asthma symptoms than once-daily FP 100 microg alone in patients with mild persistent asthma. However, twice-daily treatment with either SFC or ICSs plus short acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists could be required to achieve guideline-defined asthma control in some patients.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 mcg Diskus administered once daily

BACKGROUND

The twice daily administration of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) has been shown to be effective in achieving asthma control. The once daily administration of an ICS/LABA may be a treatment option for some patients.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of fluticasone propionate (FP)/salmeterol via a single inhaler (FSC) administered once daily compared with FP once daily, FSC twice daily, or placebo.

METHODS

A 12-week, randomized, double-blind multicenter study conducted in 844 patients > or = 12 years of age who were symptomatic while using a short-acting beta(2)-agonist alone. Blinded treatments included: FSC 250/50 mcg once daily in the evening (FSC 250/50 QD), FP 250 mcg once daily in the evening (FP 250 QD), FSC 100/50 mcg twice daily (FSC 100/50 mcg BID), or placebo. All treatments were delivered via the Diskus device.

RESULTS

All treatments demonstrated greater improvements in efficacy measures compared with placebo. Overall, the greatest improvements were observed in the patients receiving FSC, either once or twice daily, compared with the FP 250 QD group. The two FSC treatments were similar except that QD dosing did not maintain improvements in lung function for 24h compared with twice daily dosing. All treatments were well tolerated. No suppression of HPA axis, as assessed by 24-h urinary cortisol excretion, was observed in any of the active treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients symptomatic on a short-acting beta(2)-agonist alone, FSC 100/50 mcg BID was shown to provide better efficacy than a higher strength (FSC 250/50 mcg) administered once daily. However, a once daily regimen was effective and may be a valuable treatment option for some patients. Registered at (http://ctr.gsk.co.uk/welcome.asp) (SAS30022).

Fluticasone versus beclomethasone or budesonide for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) and budesonide (BUD) are commonly prescribed inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of asthma. Fluticasone propionate (FP) is newer agent with greater potency in in-vitro assays.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of Fluticasone to Beclomethasone or Budesonide in the treatment of chronic asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trial register (January 2007) and reference lists of articles. We contacted trialists and pharmaceutical companies for additional studies and searched abstracts of major respiratory society meetings (1997 to 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials in children and adults comparing Fluticasone to either Beclomethasone or Budesonide in the treatment of chronic asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality. One reviewer extracted data. Quantitative analyses were undertaken using RevMan analyses 1.0.1.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-one studies (14,602 participants) representing 74 randomised comparisons met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was fair. Dose ratio 1:2: FP produced a significantly greater end of treatment FEV1 (0.04 litres (95% CI 0 to 0.07 litres), end of treatment and change in morning PEF, but not change in FEV1 or evening PEF. This applied to all drug doses, age groups, and delivery devices. No difference between FP and BDP/BUD were seen for trial withdrawals. FP led to fewer symptoms and less rescue medication use. When given at half the dose of BDP/BUD, FP led to a greater likelihood of pharyngitis. There was no difference in the likelihood of oral candidiasis. Plasma cortisol and 24 hour urinary cortisol was measured frequently but data presentation was limited. Dose ratio 1:1: FP produced a statistically significant difference in morning PEF, evening PEF, and FEV1 over BDP or BUD. The effects on exacerbations were mixed. There were no significant differences incidence of hoarseness, pharyngitis, candidiasis, or cough.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Fluticasone given at half the daily dose of beclomethasone or budesonide leads to small improvements in measures of airway calibre, but it appears to have a higher risk of causing sore throat and when given at the same daily dose leads to increased hoarseness. There are concerns about adrenal suppression with Fluticasone given to children at doses greater than 400 mcg/day, but the randomised trials included in this review did not provide sufficient data to address this issue.

Long-term comparison of 3 controller regimens for mild-moderate persistent childhood asthma: the Pediatric Asthma Controller Trial

BACKGROUND

More evidence is needed on which to base recommendations for treatment of mild-moderate persistent asthma in school-aged children.

OBJECTIVE

The Pediatric Asthma Controller Trial (PACT) compared the effectiveness of 3 regimens in achieving asthma control.

METHODS

A total of 285 children (ages 6-14 years) with mild-moderate persistent asthma on the basis of symptoms, and with FEV(1) >or= 80% predicted and methacholine FEV(1) PC(20) <or= 12.5 mg/mL, were randomized to 1 of 3 double-blind 48-week treatments: fluticasone 100 microg twice daily (fluticasone monotherapy), fluticasone 100 microg/salmeterol 50 microg in the morning and salmeterol 50 mug in the evening (PACT combination), and montelukast 5 mg in the evening. Outcomes included asthma control days (primary outcome), exacerbations, humanistic measurements, and pulmonary function measurements.

RESULTS

Fluticasone monotherapy and PACT combination were comparable in many patient-measured outcomes, including percent of asthma control days, but fluticasone monotherapy was superior for clinic-measured FEV(1)/forced vital capacity (P = .015), maximum bronchodilator response (P = .009), exhaled nitric oxide (P < .001), and PC(20) (P < .001). Fluticasone monotherapy was superior to montelukast for asthma control days (64.2% vs 52.5%; P = .004) and for all other control outcomes. Growth over 48 weeks was not statistically different (fluticasone, 5.3 cm; PACT combination, 5.3 cm; montelukast, 5.7 cm).

CONCLUSION

Both fluticasone monotherapy and PACT combination achieved greater improvements in asthma control days than montelukast. However, fluticasone monotherapy was superior to PACT combination in achieving other dimensions of asthma control. Growth was similar in all groups.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Therefore, of the regimens tested, the PACT study findings favor fluticasone monotherapy in treating children with mild-moderate persistent asthma with FEV(1) >or= 80% predicted, confirming current guideline recommendations.

Once-daily administration of fluticasone propionate does not worsen controlled airway hyperresponsiveness in patients with asthma

BACKGROUND

Inhaled steroids are currently the most important drugs for asthma patients, but compliance tends to be low. Compliance could be improved by reducing the number of daily administrations.

OBJECTIVES

In the present study, we compared once- and twice-daily administration of fluticasone propionate (FP) to determine the differences in efficacy.

METHODS

Subjects were 40 patients diagnosed with bronchial asthma with stable symptoms and pulmonary functions who were on twice-daily FP administration of 100 microg. There were 14 men and 26 women ranging from 29 to 72 years of age. After a 4-week observation period, subjects were randomized into two administration groups by the envelope method and followed for 8 weeks: group A, once-daily administration (200 microg of FP at night), and group B, twice-daily administration (100 microg of FP in the morning and at night). Clinical symptoms, pulmonary functions and airway responsiveness were compared between these two groups.

RESULTS

No significant deterioration in clinical symptoms, pulmonary functions and airway responsiveness were observed in group A compared with group B.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that once-daily FP administration is as effective as twice-daily administration, and that it may improve the compliance for inhaled steroids.

Once-daily fluticasone propionate in stable asthma: study on airway inflammation

Children with stable asthma receiving twice-daily fluticasone propionate (FP) were studied. Spirometry, exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) and sputum eosinophils were measured at baseline and 8 weeks after FP was changed to once-daily use while keeping the same total dosage. Visual analogue scores on asthma severity, symptoms, and dosing regimen preference were obtained. Twenty-nine children of mean age 10.6 years (SD 2.5) were recruited. There was significant improvement in eNO (47.1 ppb [30.3] vs. 39.9 ppb [27.1], p = 0.037), and sputum eosinophils (5.7% [6.5] vs. 2.5% [3.9], p = 0.024] after 8 weeks. All subjects preferred the once-daily dosing regimen. Once-daily FP is effective in controlling airway inflammation. This frequency of medication use is also the preferred regimen.

Fluticasone given once versus twice a day: meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of fluticasone administered once daily compared to twice daily in asthma.

METHODOLOGY

A meta-analysis was performed of randomized double-blind trials of at least 4 weeks duration that compared fluticasone administered once versus twice a day and presented data on at least one clinical outcome measure.

RESULTS

Six studies of 1517 children and adults with asthma met the inclusion criteria. Studies were predominantly in subjects with moderate asthma, treated with doses of fluticasone ranging from 200 to 500 microg per day. Twice-daily dosing was associated with significantly greater efficacy compared with once-daily dosing, for all outcome measures except night wakenings. The mean (95% CI) differences between twice and once-daily administration for FEV(1) and peak expiratory flow were 0.11 L (0.07-0.16) and 12.9 L/min (8.6-17.1), respectively. Twice-daily fluticasone was associated with significantly fewer withdrawals due to asthma than once-daily fluticasone, with an odds ratio of 0.44 (0.30-0.67).

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that twice-daily administration of fluticasone will provide greater therapeutic benefit than a once-daily morning regimen.

Fluticasone versus placebo for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) is a relatively new inhaled corticosteroid for the treatment of asthma.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess efficacy and safety outcomes in studies that compared FP to placebo for treatment of chronic asthma.2. To explore the presence of a dose-response effect.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (January 2005), reference lists of articles, contacted trialists and searched abstracts of major respiratory society meetings (1997-2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials in children and adults comparing FP to placebo in the treatment of chronic asthma. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers extracted data. Quantitative analyses were undertaken using RevMan 4.2

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-five studies met the inclusion criteria (14,208 participants). Methodological quality was high. In non-oral steroid treated asthmatics with mild and moderate disease FP resulted in improvements from baseline compared with placebo across all dose ranges (100 to 1000 mcg/d) in FEV1 (between 0.13 to 0.45 litres); morning PEF (between 23 and 47 L/min); symptom scores (based on a standardised scale, between 0.5 and 0.85); reduction in rescue beta-2 agonist use (between 1.2 and 2.2 puffs/day). High dose FP increased the number of patients who could withdraw from prednisolone: FP 1000-1500 mcg/day Peto Odds Ratio 14.07 (95% CI 7.17 to 27.57). FP at all doses led to a greater likelihood of sore throat, hoarseness and oral Candidiasis. Twenty-one patients would need to be treated for one extra to develop Candidiasis (FP 500 mcg/day), whilst only three or four patients need to be treated to avoid one extra patient being withdrawn due to lack of efficacy at all doses of FP.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Doses of FP in the range 100-1000 mcg/day are effective. In most patients with mild-moderate asthma improvements with low dose FP are only a little less than those associated with high doses when compared with placebo. High dose FP appears to have worthwhile oral-corticosteroid reducing properties. FP use is accompanied by an increased likelihood of oropharyngeal side effects.

Clinically equivalent bronchodilatation achieved with formoterol delivered via Easyhaler and Aerolizer

BACKGROUND

User-friendly devices for the delivery of asthma drugs are needed to enhance treatment compliance. Formoterol inhalation powder has been developed to Easyhaler multidose powder inhaler to enable the treatment of all asthma severities with the same device.

OBJECTIVES

This double-blind, double-dummy, single- dose, placebo-controlled, cross-over study aimed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the bronchodilating effect of formoterol 12 microg delivered via Easyhaler versus via Aerolizer. In addition, dose responses following placebo, 12-microg and 48-microg doses of formoterol via Easyhaler were compared. Furthermore, onset and duration of action, and safety of formoterol inhaled using the two inhalers were compared.

METHODS

Sixty-seven adult asthmatic subjects showing >or=15% increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) after short-acting sympathomimetic inhalation were enrolled and completed the study. The study comprised screening and 4 treatment days, with each subject inhaling a single 12-mug dose of formoterol via Easyhaler, a 12-microg dose via Aerolizer, a 48-microg dose via Easyhaler or placebo. Repeat spirometry and vital sign measurements were performed for 12 h during treatment days. The primary efficacy variable was the area under the flow volume curve (AUC(0-12)) of FEV(1). Secondary efficacy variables comprised maximum FEV(1 )(FEV(1max)), forced vital capacity (FVC), and the need of rescue medication during the treatment days. Safety was evaluated by determining blood pressure, heart rate and the number of adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Results showed the non-inferiority of the bronchodilating effect of 12 microg formoterol via Easyhaler compared to Aerolizer. The Easyhaler-Aerolizer ratio for AUC(0-12) of FEV(1 )was 0.991 (95% confidence interval from 0.969 to 1.013). No statistically significant differences emerged for secondary efficacy variables. A statistically significant dose response was seen following placebo, 12- and 48-microg doses in FEV(1). No safety differences emerged for the 12-microg dose inhaled via Easyhaler or Aerolizer, but the incidence of AEs was higher following formoterol 48 microg and placebo treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Formoterol delivered via Easyhaler was therapeutically equivalent to Aerolizerat the 12-microg dose. The 48-microg dose via Easyhaler demonstrated statistically significantly greater bronchodilation but showed an increased occurrence of AEs.

Inhaled fluticasone at different doses for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) is a high-potency inhaled corticosteroid used in the treatment of asthma.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the efficacy and safety outcomes of inhaled fluticasone at different nominal daily doses in the treatment of chronic asthma. 2. To test for the presence of a dose-response effect.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register (January 2005) and reference lists of articles. We contacted trialists and pharmaceutical companies for additional studies and searched abstracts of major respiratory society meetings (1997 to 2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials in children and adults comparing fluticasone at different nominal daily doses in the treatment of chronic asthma. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One reviewer extracted data. These were checked and verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative analyses where undertaken using RevMan (Analyses 1.0.2).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-three studies (45 data sets with 8913 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was high. In asthmatics with mild to moderate disease who were not on oral steroids a dose-response effect was present with FP for change in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF). For low doses (100 versus 200 microg/day) the weighted mean difference (WMD) was 6.29 litres/min, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.28 to 10.29. Comparing medium (400 to 500 microg/day) to low dose (200 microg/day) FP the WMD was 6.46 litres/min (95% CI 3.02 to 9.89); this effect was more pronounced in one trial with more severely asthmatic children. For FP 100 versus 400 to 500 microg/day the WMD was 8 litres/min (95% CI 1 to 15) and at high versus low doses (800 to 1000 versus 50 to 100 microg/d) the WMD was 22 litres/min (95% CI 15 to 29). When high and medium doses were compared there was no significant difference in the change in morning PEF: at 400 to 500 versus 800 to 1000 microg/day the WMD was 0.16 litres/min (95% CI 6.95 to 6.63). There was no dose-response effect on symptoms or rescue beta-2 agonist use. The likelihood of hoarseness and oral candidiasis was significantly greater for the higher doses (800 to 1000 microg/day). People with oral steroid-dependent asthma treated with FP (2000 microg/day) were significantly more likely to reduce oral prednisolone than those on 1000 to 1500 microg/day (Peto odds Ratio 2.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 6.3). The highest dose also allowed a significant reduction in daily oral prednisolone dose compared to 1000 to 1500 microg/day (WMD 2.0 mg/day, 95% CI 0.1 to 4.0 mg/day).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Effects of fluticasone are dose dependent but relatively small. At dose ratios of 1:2, there are significant differences in favour of the higher dose in morning peak flow across the low dose range. The clinical impact of these differences is open to interpretation. Patients with moderate disease achieve similar levels of asthma control on medium doses of fluticasone (400 to 500 microg/day) as they do on high doses (800 to 1000 microg/day). More work in severe asthma would help to confirm that doses of FP above 500 microg/day confer greater benefit in this subgroup than doses of around 200 microg/day. In oral corticosteroid-dependent asthmatics, reductions in prednisolone requirement may be gained with FP 2000 microg/day.

Protection by budesonide and fluticasone on allergen-induced airway responses after discontinuation of therapy

BACKGROUND

Treatment with inhaled steroids is an effective method of reducing bronchoconstriction and airway inflammation after allergen challenge. However, the duration of the protective effects of inhaled steroids after discontinuation of therapy has not been established.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the protective effect of 1 week of inhaled steroid therapy against inhaled allergen challenge 12 hours after discontinuation of therapy.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial, 26 asthmatic subjects (>18 years old) not using inhaled steroids were administered 200 microg of budesonide twice daily, 200 microg of fluticasone twice daily, or placebo twice daily for 1 week. Twelve hours after discontinuation of therapy, subjects were administered an inhaled allergen challenge. Each treatment period was separated by a 3-week washout period.

RESULTS

When compared with placebo (26% +/- 14%), there was a slight but significant protection against the allergen-induced early response after fluticasone treatment (19% +/- 10%, P = .001) but not after budesonide treatment (23% +/- 13%, P = .08). However, when the area under the curve for the early airway response was examined, there was no difference between the 2 drugs in the amount of protection ( P = .62). Partial protection was demonstrated against the late-response allergen-induced sputum eosinophilia with both treatments ( P = .001). By contrast, no protection was observed against allergen-induced airway hyperresponsiveness for either treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The protective effects of inhaled steroids against allergen-induced early responses, airway eosinophilia, and allergen-induced airway hyperresponsiveness are partially or completely lost as early as 12 hours after discontinuation of therapy.

The relationship between health-related quality of life, lung function and daily symptoms in patients with persistent asthma

It is generally believed that there is a direct correlation between asthma control and a patient's health-related quality of life (HRQL). Objective and subjective measures of asthma control are used interchangeably. A retrospective analysis from 8994 patients from 27 randomized, controlled clinical trials with persistent asthma was conducted to determine the degree of association which exists between objective (lung function) and subjective (symptoms, quality of life) measures. Assessments were made via forced expiratory volume in 1-second (FEV1), self-reported symptoms and the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) overall scores. Baseline percent predicted FEV1 was weakly correlated with baseline symptom-free days (SFD) and baseline overall AQLQ scores (r=0.11 and 0.09, respectively; P <0.001). Changes in percent predicted FEV1 correlated weakly with changes in SFD but was more strongly correlated with changes in overall AQLQ scores (r= 0.26 and 0.38, respectively; P <0.001). Additionally, SFD at both baseline and endpoint were moderately correlated with overall AQLQ scores at baseline and endpoint (r=0.36 and 0.44; P <0.001). This study suggests that the impact of asthma on a patients' HRQL is not fully accounted for by objective measures such as lung function. Thus, HRQL data complements rather than duplicates results from traditional, objective assessments of asthma control.

Once-daily inhaled budesonide for the treatment of asthma: clinical evidence and pharmacokinetic explanation

BACKGROUND

Budesonide, a widely used inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) with a favorable therapeutic ratio, is available via a dry powder inhaler (Pulmicort Turbuhaler) and as a suspension for nebulization (Pulmicort Respules).

METHODS

MEDLINE and an AstraZeneca database were searched to identify relevant controlled clinical trials published between 1986 and 2002 using the key words budesonide OR inhaled corticosteroid, AND once daily.

RESULTS

Thirty-four controlled clinical studies involving once-daily administration of budesonide to asthmatic patients were identified. Excluding long-term studies, this review presents data from 23 controlled studies for 4466 adults or adolescents and 1532 children with asthma and demonstrates efficacy of budesonide in both corticosteroid-naïve patients and patients previously treated with ICS. Once-daily administration of budesonide achieves clinical efficacy comparable with that of twice-daily regimens in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma and is equally effective when given in the morning or evening. Once-daily administration simplifies treatment regimens and may improve patient compliance. The tolerability profiles of budesonide once-daily via Turbuhaler or as budesonide inhalation suspension are good and comparable with those for twice-daily dosing.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily budesonide is effective and well tolerated as initial treatment for adults and children with mild asthma and as maintenance therapy in patients with more severe asthma once asthma control has been achieved.

Once-daily inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay of asthma therapy. Although compliance to this type of medication is often suboptimal and once-daily dosing can help to improve adherence to the treatment, the clinical implications of such a mode of administration should be determined.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review summarizes the recent studies on comparative efficacy of once-versus twice-daily administration of ICS, in light of previous reports.

SUMMARY

Although twice-daily administration of ICS is often better to optimize asthma parameters, in many patients, asthma can be sufficiently controlled by a once-daily regimen of most ICS. An increased frequency of dosing seems preferable if asthma becomes uncontrolled or is severe, although this requires further study. A therapeutic trial should, however, be done to ensure that asthma control is adequate. Comparative long-term effects of such a strategy on inflammatory and remodeling parameters remain to be determined, as does the proportion of patients who can adequately control their asthma with once-daily administration of the various ICS available.

The role of intracellular esterification in budesonide once-daily dosing and airway selectivity

BACKGROUND

Since their introduction in the 1970s, inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) have been used to control airway inflammation associated with asthma. Budesonide is one of the ICSs recommended as first-line therapy for mild to moderate persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVE

This article describes the esterification of budesonide and how it results in prolonged, location-specific retention of drug in the airways, allowing once-daily dosing.

RESULTS

Studies conducted over the past decade have shown that budesonide forms reversible fatty acid esters within the cells of airway tissue, resulting in the formation of an intracellular depot pool of inactive drug. As the intracellular concentration of free budesonide decreases, these budesonide esters are hydrolyzed back to their active state. This process increases budesonide's retention in the airways, prolongs its duration of action, and lowers the risk of systemic effects.

CONCLUSIONS

By extending budesonide's local anti-inflammatory effect and increasing its airway selectivity, the esterification process appears to contribute to the drug's efficacy, particularly during once-daily administration. Reducing the number of required daily inhalations may increase patient compliance with asthma therapy, although this remains to be evaluated.

Ethical assessment of clinical asthma trials including children subjects

BACKGROUND

The inclusion of children with asthma in clinical asthma trials is increasing, including their participation in placebo-controlled trials (PCTs). The objectives of this study are to assess whether children with asthma have been harmed by their participation in PCTs.

METHODS

Seventy clinical asthma trials involving children published between January 1998 and December 2001 that involved distinct US research populations were identified. Studies were reviewed to determine whether all subjects with more than mild asthma received daily antiinflammatory medication as recommended by national guidelines. Sixty-two clinical asthma trials included data about subject withdrawal and were analyzed for the frequency of asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies were designed as PCTs and did not require that all subjects with more than mild asthma receive antiinflammatory medications. Of 24,953 subjects, 4653 (19%) for whom data are available withdrew from research, and 1247 subjects (9.4%) withdrew from PCTs due to asthma exacerbations compared with 358 subjects (3.1%) in other trials. In PCTs, subjects withdrew more frequently from the placebo arms than the active-treatment arms and did so more frequently because of an asthma exacerbation (667 or 15% vs 580 or 6.5%). Fifty-two studies enrolled both children and adults, although only 1 performed subset analysis of the children.

CONCLUSIONS

Subjects enrolled in PCTs of asthma have been exposed to unnecessary risks and harms. Clinical asthma trials involving children and adults do not benefit children as a class because they rarely provide subset analysis of children subjects.

A review of once-daily delivery of anti-asthmatic drugs in children

Determining which drug is suitable for, and which patient can benefit from, a once-daily dose of prophylactic treatment is important for practitioners who want to improve therapeutic compliance in children with asthma. According to the literature, once-daily delivery of cromolyn sodium, nedocromil or beclomethasone dipropionate must be avoided. On the other hand, switching from a twice-daily to a once-daily regimen is efficient and safe only in children with well-controlled asthma using nebulized or dry-powder budesonide, dry-powder fluticasone propionate, flunisolide, or sustained-release theophylline. Such information is not available for long-acting beta2-agonists, except for oral bambuterol. Initiating a once-daily treatment in previously untreated children can only be based on low doses of inhaled budesonide or on an oral drug, montelukast. Further studies in children with severe asthma or treated with metered-dose inhalers and spacer devices are required before recommending a once-daily drug delivery in such situations.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate 250 microg administered once daily in patients with persistent asthma treated with or without inhaled corticosteroids

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown fluticasone propionate (FP) 100, 200, and 500 microg administered once daily to be effective in the treatment of asthma. The efficacy of a once daily regimen of FP 250 microg has not been evaluated previously.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of inhaled FP 250 microg administered once daily in patients currently receiving inhaled short-acting beta-agonists (SABA) alone or inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).

METHODS

In two separate studies, 408 patients in the SABA study and 401 patients in the ICS study were randomly assigned to receive FP 250 microg or placebo for 12 weeks through the Diskus device (GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC) each morning.

RESULTS

At the study endpoint, SABA patients treated with FP and placebo had mean increases in forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline of 0.23 +/- 0.03 L and 0.10 +/- 0.03 L, respectively (P < 0.001). ICS patients treated with FP had a mean increase of 0.08 +/- 0.02 L compared with a decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second of -0.08 +/- 0.03 L with placebo (P < 0.001). Changes of similar magnitude in morning peak expiratory flow rates were seen with FP in both the SABA and ICS studies. Fewer FP-treated ICS study patients were withdrawn from the study as a result of predetermined asthma stability criteria and, therefore, those patients had a greater probability of remaining in the study than placebo-treated patients (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

FP 250 microg, once daily, produced greater improvements in pulmonary function and asthma symptom control than placebo. This new treatment regimen provides clinicians with an additional therapeutic option for patients with asthma previously treated with either beta2-agonists alone or ICS.

Treatment of asthma by the inhaled corticosteroid ciclesonide given either in the morning or evening

The study addressed the question whether the novel inhaled prodrug corticosteroid ciclesonide is equally effective when inhaled in the morning compared to the evening. For this purpose a double-blind, randomized, parallel group study was initiated in which 209 asthmatic patients (forced expiratory volume in one second = 50-90% predicted) inhaled either 200 microg ciclesonide in the morning or in the evening, for 8 weeks. Efficacy was assessed by means of spirometry as well as daily recordings of morning and evening peak expiratory flow (PEF), symptoms and use of rescue medication. The 24-h urinary cortisol excretion was measured to evaluate any effect on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenol axis. Ciclesonide significantly improved asthma control. Morning and evening administration was shown to be equally effective for the different spirometry variables, evening PEF, symptoms, use of rescue medication and number of asthma exacerbations. Regarding morning PEF, the improvements after evening dosing were more prominent and equivalence of morning and evening administration could not be demonstrated. No relevant influence on cortisol excretion was found. Overall, the study indicates that ciclesonide can be given either in the morning or in the evening to meet the patients' preference and individual medical needs, although evening administration may lead to a more pronounced improvement in morning peak expiratory flow.

Fluticasone propionate: a potent inhaled corticosteroid for the treatment of asthma

Fluticasone propionate (FP) is a potent inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for the treatment of asthma. It is currently marketed in both the United States (as Flovent) and Europe (as Flixotide). Fluticasone is available in both aerosolised metered dose inhaler (MDI) and dry powder devices, with dosages ranging from 44-500 micrograms/puff. FP has been extensively studied in both children and adults; efficacy has been documented across the entire spectrum of asthma severity, including corticosteroid-dependent disease. Clinical data with FP strongly corroborates the in vitro pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies that FP is at least twice as potent as beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP), budesonide (BUD) or triamcinolone acetonide (TAA). Both objective (lung function) and subjective (symptoms, beta-agonist use and quality of life) outcomes are improved with FP treatment. Extensive post-marketing surveillance with FP suggests that it is more cost-effective than BUD and flunisolide (FLU) when analysed by an overall healthcare cost perspective. Most of the benefits arise from decreased hospitalizations, emergency room visits and physician-office visits. Extensive safety data with FP documents no clinically meaningful effects on bone mass, nor impairment of growth velocity in children. Considering the efficacy and safety data along with the ability to optimise patient's asthma therapy using the delivery devices and strengths available, FP has become a leader in the ICS marketplace to date.